160 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. [ February 22, 1883. 
Tree (Salisburia adiantifolia), another a Magnolia, and so on ; but 
more curious is the effect of Rubuses and Laurustinuses that have 
sprung as seedlings out of the wall 10 feet from the ground, and 
now, as trained to the wall, they appear as if stuck on the face of 
the masonry. On the top of this terrace is the great gravel pro¬ 
menade and another garden of Phloxes and hardy plants, and 
on a still higher terrace stands the Castle. The view from this 
standpoint across the grounds below—the striking sand and Heath 
garden near—the bright flower beds, Violas, Tuberous Begonias, 
and other telling masses further distant, and the heavily wooded 
wilderness heights beyond — is beautiful in the extreme, and 
tempts us to linger and admire a scene that cannot be adequately 
described. 
We now climb the opposite tree-clad range by twisting walks, 
reach the grassy drives, of which there are 45 miles—soft silent 
carriage drives through the woods, kept like lawns—and meander 
along the ridge, with the beautiful Nithsdale spread below us, the 
river gliding through the green pastures and losing itself in the 
distant mountain passes, we arrive again at the point from which 
we started—the pretty cottage on the steep hillside, rest, refresh, 
step into Mr. Thomson’s wagonette, and leave (there was quite a 
little party), I fear reluctantly, a place which, both by its magni¬ 
tude, diversified character, and high keeping, has few equals in 
this country.—J. Weight. 
GARDENERS AS SERVANTS. 
The following decision in reference to the liability of employers 
to be taxed for gardeners and garden workmen was recently given 
in the Times :— 
“ At Marylebone, Captain Aubrey Lisle Patton, of Alpha House, 
Alpha Road, St. John’s Wood, was summoned for keeping a male 
servant without a license. Mr. Powell appeared to support the 
summons. Michael Jamieson, an officer of Excise, said on August 
23rd last he saw a man, apparently a gardener, working in a green¬ 
house on the defendant’s premises. The witness subsequently called 
on the defendant and spoke to him on the subject. He said he 
claimed exemption as the man did not live in the house ; he was only 
a common day labourer, not a servant. The defendant said he 
employed several men, and urged that in this case it could not be 
held that the man was a servant within the meaning of the Act. 
Two of the men employed by the defendant were called, and it was 
shown that they were engaged by the day, and received their money 
weekly. They" were not regularly engaged every day, and when 
employed at odd times ttfey were paid by the hour. Mr. Cooke said 
the matter was one of great importance, and the point had not yet 
been decided. The fifth clause of the 39th Vic., cap. 16, was espe¬ 
cially enacted to meet the case of youths and men who were 
partially employed in different gentlemen’s houses during the day. 
That, in his opinion, settled the point, though it did, no doubt, inflict 
great hardship in certain cases. He should decide that when a 
person was employed for the whole day he did absolutely become a 
servant of the person employing him. He had no doubt as to the 
accuracy of Captain Patton’s statement with regard to his men, but 
he must hold that the man referred to was a servant within the 
meaning of the Act. He should inflict a nominal penalty only of 5s. 
Captain Patton asked how many of his men he was to put down on 
the schedule, as he had as many as sixteen employed at one time. 
Mr. Cooke said he thought under the Act each of them would have 
to be paid for if he was employed an entire day. He should not be 
sorry if his decision was appealed against.” 
[As we were somewhat surprised at this decision we have carefully 
looked up the statutes bearing upon the point at issue in so far as 
they concern gardeners, and we must say that we are entirely at a 
loss to see how the learned Magistrate arrived at his conclusion. The 
“Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1869” (32 and 33 Vic., cap. 14) 
provides that a sum of 15s. for every male servant shall be paid 
annually upon licenses to be taken out under the provisions of the 
Act by the person who employs the servant. The Act defines a male 
servant—“ Any male servant employed either wholly or partially in 
any of the following capacities—that is to say (inter alia), Gardener, 
under-gardener, or in any capacity involving the duties of any of the 
above descriptions of servants by whatever style the person acting in 
such capacity may be called.” The “ Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 
1876 ” (39 Vic., cap. 16) by Sect. 5 amended the first-mentioned Act 
as follows : “ The term male servant as used in the Act 32 and 33 Vic., 
cap. 14, shall not include a servant who being bond fide employed in 
any capacity other than the capacities specified or referred to in pro¬ 
vision No. 3 of Sect. 19 of the said Act” (the part of the Act from 
which we have quoted) “ is occasionally or partially employed in any 
of the said capacities so specified or referred to, and shall not include 
a person who has been bona fide engaged to serve his employer for a 
portion only of each day, and does not reside in his employer’s house.” 
The learned Magistrate stated that the fifth clause of 39 Vic., 
cap. 16, was specially enacted to meet the case of youths and men 
who were partially employed in different gentlemen’s houses during 
the day ; that, in his opinion, settled the point. It may be that the 
latter portion of the section was enacted with this object, but the 
first part of the section seems to us to have been rather enacted with 
a view to meet such cases as that actually before the Magistrate— 
namely, those in which labourers or others habitually employed by a 
person were occasionally employed in the capacity of gardener, 
under-gardener, or some other capacity named in the original Act. 
It also seems to us that the duty imposed, being an annual one, 
indicates that it is only intended to be imposed in cases where the 
male servant, gardener, or otherwise is regularly employed, and that 
the mere hiring of an additional man to assist in the garden for a 
week or a month would not come within the spirit of the Act. 
In any case the matter seems to us to be one which should be settled 
one way or the other, and we trust Captain Patton will appeal from 
the decision of the Magistrate.] 
PHLOXES FOR LATE FLOWERING. 
Now is the time to divide and replant Phloxes for late flower¬ 
ing. The division of this flower has fallen into disrepute, and 
propagation by cuttings takes the place of the more simple 
though perhaps less scientific system of increase. I have tried 
both ways, and for garden decoration, or perhaps for any other pur¬ 
pose, plants from division I find are quite as good as those from 
cuttings. I have always strong plants to propagate from, two 
years being the longest period they remain in one place ; but I 
conceive if good cultivation is allowed, there is not much fear of 
the results. Our plan is to lift the old plants which the preceding 
season had about five strong shoots ; the stools are broken up, one 
strong growth having as a rule sufficient young shoots at its base 
to make a good plant. Above everything the plants like rich soil. 
Given that, and planted now with due care throughout the 
summer as regards routine work, and a display of this lovely 
autumn flower three or four weeks later than ordinary plants will 
be produced.—R. P. 
NOTES FROM MY GARDEN IN 1882.—No. 2. 
AURICULAS. 
After some years of vexation and disappointment in the culti¬ 
vation of what I must look upon as my first love in horticulture, 
the beautiful and refined Auricula, I am at last beginning to 
“ see daylight,” not that my collection is what it was or what I 
would wish it to be ; but it does not present that woe-begone 
appearance it did two or three years ago, and I hope, if nothing 
unforeseen occurs, to have enjoyment out of it this season. I have 
still the woolly aphis, but not in any way like what I had ; and 
while I cannot for one moment agree with those who think that 
is not injurious to the plants, still less with those who consider it 
positively beneficial, I am inclined to agree with those growers 
who do not think it so hurtful as was once supposed. I re¬ 
member Mr. Horner’s graphic description of the Auricula in¬ 
fested by it some years ago, but where it comes to that I imagine 
there is something else than the aphis at work. It has produced, 
probably, a weakness in the plant which has made it susceptible 
to other adverse influences ; but where it has been detected and 
has not been allowed to go undisturbed, there its injurious effects 
are not so great. One of the most amusing things connected with 
its history is that a writer in a contemporary actually made the 
assertion that it was beneficial to the plants, and brought forward 
the authority of some of the Yorkshire growers, who told him 
that they had never had their plants healthy until they got it 
amongst them ! I imagine his informant must have been “ coming 
Yorkshire o’er him,” and quietly winked to himself when he was 
imparting the information to a “ soft southerner.” I do not see 
how we are to get quite rid of it, for I find it, or something which 
looks very like it, on the roots of Lettuces, Sow Thistles, and other 
plants in my garden. Fir-tree oil decidedly finishes it for the 
time and does not injure the root or foliage of the plants. 
Amongst other experiments, I tried last year the planting of a 
number out in a frame. The frame was half filled with broken 
brickbats, pots, &e., and then a few inches of good loam placed 
on the top without any admixture whatever. The plants were 
planted in it about 5 inches apart and left until the autumn 
exposed to all weathers. The frame being in a north aspect, in 
October the light was put on and air given on all suitable occa¬ 
sions, and now in February I find the plants looking healthy and 
well. A few have vanished, but it has been from some of that 
horrible plague of snails and slugs which I have experienced like 
many others, and which this wet and mild winter has so greatly 
encouraged, and as the frame stood under a hedge it was more 
liable to invasion. Walled gardens possess an advantage both in 
this way and in the matter of weeds. No matter how clear I 
might keep my garden, the hedges and ditches around me are 
full of weeds, and they easily scatter themselves in mine and my 
neighbours’ gardens and come up in all unlooked-for situations. 
